The Rabbit Takes a Hit

Each of the companies has recently taken steps to reform their student-recruiting practices and reduce their dependence on federal student-aid funds. Mr. Marshall, in an interview, dismissed those moves as mostly “window dressing” that don’t deal with deeper challenges. “We don’t think the reforms are going to work,” he said. “The culture within these companies is not changing. (“Firm Says Poor Governance Puts 3 Higher-Education Companies at Risk of ‘Outright Failure‘”)

There’s more evidence this week that the fast rabbit for-profit universities (where I work) may be loosing their advantage against the slow-moving tortoises of the public sector.  This seems particularly serious, because it could impact a company’s ability to attract new investment as well as borrow money at a reasonable rate.  It also suggests the  economic dilemma that will dominate business in the next decade.

For the last two or three decades, and especially in the last decade, a clever company or university could thrive  by taking advantage of the Republican ideology that disabled regulations.  No one was watching. As the regulatory apparatus slowly and unevenly comes back to life, these companies and schools will have to adapt. The pubic schools will no doubt survive but some for-profits may well go out of business.

The line between public and for-profit is blurry, though, and neither side has a monopoly on ethics or effective governance. The for-profits are so reliant on public money they are arguably not really private at all. That’s why the emerging regulatory system is going to have such an impact. And many of the public universities, like Penn State, are as corrupt and greedy as anything on Wall Street.

Less Than Zero

In the year ahead, Texas plans to reduce its arts budget by 77 percent; Wisconsin by 67 percent. Kansas will eliminate arts funding altogether. Even New York, with an economy that is driven by culture, will cut funding by 12 percent. Since National Endowment for the Arts statutes don’t allow a state to receive a distribution without an arts budget, Kansas will receive no appropriation from the NEA either, leaving the arts without a penny of public support in that state (“As Appropriations Dry Up, Arts Infrastructure Is Dismantled“).

One of the main reasons economics in general, and the discussion of politics in particular, bugs me so much is that so little energy seems to be devoted to what we want to do as opposed to what we are supposed to do. Or, at least, what we are told we are supposed to do. It’s an obvious point, but it’s worth asking: do we want the wealthy to get wealthier or do we want the arts in our schools and in our communities?

What we are supposed to do, what we are told we have to do, what Europe is being asked to do, and what the U.S. will be asked to do soon, is to set aside our desires so that material privilege and profits can be protected. In the schools, administrators rarely cut their own salaries or trim their own budgets in times of crisis, and in the economy at large corporations rarely accept reduced profits in the name of the public good.

The Future of Teeth

“I certainly agree with those observers who believe that our current practices in accreditation are so abstract, so subjective, so procedural and so self-referential as to border on being substantively meaningless in assuring institutional quality or integrity,” Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, told a federal panel that advises Education Secretary Arne Duncan on accreditation issues. (“Accreditors Examine Their Flaws as Calls for Change Intensify“)

 

Academic reform can’t happen without the creation of a national union movement. That’s the first and necessary step in democratizing higher education. The democratization of the university also cannot happen, though, without  the democratization of accreditation. The university system and the accreditation industry are mirror images of the same sorts of corruption.

If universities–public or private–get government money– hopefully, in future, the current system of loans would change to direct grants– then they should conform to democratic norms, including systems of checks and balances to act as a counterweight to administrative power, as well as standards of equitable employment. Democracy ought to feed democracy.

The accreditation agencies, given real teeth in their power to control access to federal money, including research grants, should be similarly democratized, again, in the name of creating institutions that can counter administrative power as well as the power of capital as such. It’s our money, and it should be invested in our futures, not in lining the pockets of the administrator and already wealthy.